Air trends 'amplifying' warming

Well, Scientists? Crap or not-Crap?

-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938

Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts."

No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.

global dimming...........

So by cleaning the air we have dirtied, we now contribute to global warming. I think John needs to pass a drink.

-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938

Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts."

No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Deech56
Atmospheric aerosols (like those released by Mount Pinatubo) are known to be a negative forcing on temperature. I don't see why John must supply drinks, but I will be happy to imbibe.

---

By doing what we need to do to "unpollute the air", we now cause "global warming". This kind of stuff drives me to drink. Do we "fix this"? Do we leave the air "unpolluted"?

-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938

Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts."

No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Deech56
Yes, it appears to be complicated, but this stuff is understood by those who are in the field. Just like the rest of science.

---

Well, then maybe i should just classify this as "you are an idiot.....dont talk about what you dont know about" and go on my way.

-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938

Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts."

No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.

Well, here is an interesting LTTE (not from Wheaton, but not from Frederick, either):

Global warming -- the heat is hype
Published on April 9, 2006

Your editorial "The heat is on" (March 31) did nothing to clear up the questions swirling around the global warming issue. Obviously, it was inspired by the huge media blitz mounted this week by the global warming alarmists. The media campaign was hatched earlier this year and rolled out at this year's Advertising Agencies Media Conference held in Orlando, Fla., at the beginning of March.

The sources you cite in support of your thesis have been widely discredited. The lies and deceptions peddled by ABC News and the other networks are exposed on a daily basis. Ross Gelbspan has been falsely held out as a Pulitzer Prize winner. (He never won a Pulitzer). The media falsely claims that James Hanson was being muzzled by the Bush administration -- this after appearing on TV so many times I thought he had his own show.

Time Magazine weighed in with its own cover story -- a story filled with lies, falsehoods and deceptions. If the case for global warming is so conclusive why did Time choose to use side-by-side photos of the South American glacier Upsala taken in 1928 and 2004 as its lead?

The photos show the glacier dramatically receding over the 76-year time span. Beneath these photos (supplied by Greenpeace) Time hysterically headlines their story like this: "Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever ... Land Being Devastated ... Rising Waters Drown Communities."

Sounds pretty apocalyptic. Now, here's the real story from real scientists published in the Annals of Glaciology, Vol. 24, 1997: ... "the temperature anomaly alone cannot elucidate the thinning of 11 m/a at Glacier Upsala ... a possible mechanism of the ice-thinning ... may have resulted in reduction of longitudinal compressive stress exerted from bedrock rises and islands near the glacier front, causing a considerable decrease in the emergence flow." Translation: The glacier is receding because of changes to earth bedrock not because of global warming. Oops, and it only gets worse.

Let this be a lesson. You should not use sources provided by other media outlets, especially the television networks. Original source material is always preferred.

Christopher J. Alleva resides in Howard County.

I find it odd that Mr. Alleva cited one source to refute a picture in Time, but ignores the huge volume of information in the scientific literature - truly the best original source material to get. Otherwise, the letter was just a series of contrarian talking points.

-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.
- Wallace S. Broecker

Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority.
- Charles B. Paul

Elitist windbag since 2004.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: John
So, ok, now I'm confused. If I drive the MASSIVE 460, it causes Global Warming. And by cleaning the air, it causes Global Warming. Next thing you'll tell me is that pulling your finger does not cause the release of gas. which will probably cause Global Warming... Maybe we need to make more people stop peeing in the wind.

And they ask me why I drink...

---

To clear up your confusion: The MASSIVE 460 isn't cleaning the air. It's just that it is not belching out sulfur dioxide that is converted to aerosols that cause dimming -> less sunlight reaching the earth. I have a feeling that finger pullling is a correlative, not a causitive agent, of gas release. I don't think that urination is a forcing, unless kidney stones are involved.

Here's one to bake your noodle: Why does burning wood contribute less to global warming than burning coal?

Meet you at the bar.

-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.
- Wallace S. Broecker

Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority.
- Charles B. Paul

Elitist windbag since 2004.

Edited: 06/24/2006 at 07:48 AM by Deech56

quote:

---

Originally posted by: John

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Deech56
... I don't think that urination is a forcing, unless kidney stones are involved.

---

Peeing in the wind was brought up because the article mentioned moisture in the atmosphere.

---

Water vapor is a feedback (more heat -> more water vapor), but don't worry - the amount that you pee is a piddling amount compared to what is available by evaporation from lakes, oceans, etc. If one pees into the wind, it is probaly a blowback as well as feedback. I don't know - I am not up on my fluid dynamics.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Here's one to bake your noodle: Why does burning wood contribute less to global warming than burning coal?

Meet you at the bar.

---

Does it have something to do about dead animals?

---

Close - think dead plants and carbon cycle.

-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.
- Wallace S. Broecker

Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority.
- Charles B. Paul

Elitist windbag since 2004.

Edited: 06/24/2006 at 07:48 AM by Deech56

quote:

---

Originally posted by: madhtr

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Deech56

quote:

---

Originally posted by: madhtr

MAN I love science, hehe

---

So you gonna take a stab at the question? C'mon. It's an extra credit question.

---

now where are those old backups from high school chemistry?

accessing ...

K, I'll guess instead of cheat by googling

I really need some time to dust of the rust, but I'm guessing its because mebbe coal has more carbon than wood, (Its basically the petrified remains of animals and might be more concentrated in carbon?) and when the oxygen mixes with it thru burning, it generates more carbon-dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas?

(please forgive me if that was idiodic, believe me, I gave it an effort worthy of a Klingon)

---

No, but that's a good guess. Actually, the answer is that most carbon from wood will generally be returned to the carbon cycle whether it decays or is burned (carbon is taken up by trees and released - no net gain or loss). Carbon from coal has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years and was outside the carbon cycle (net addition of carbon).

-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.
- Wallace S. Broecker

Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority.
- Charles B. Paul

Elitist windbag since 2004.

Edited: 04/11/2006 at 07:40 PM by Deech56

ya best keep an eye on the ocean currents, the really deep one, once it stops, then its doom.

-------------------------
Out Of The Inner Circle
Medion Composer 5100 Puter
ViewSonic A91f+, Logitech LX700
Epson Stylus Photo RX500, HP Laserjet 6MP
D-Link 604, Motorola SB5100, APC Smart UPS
WIN XP PRO, ZA Security Suite, AVG, SUSE

Interesting article from the BBC:

Global warming risk 'much higher'
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website

Global temperatures will rise further in the future than previous studies have indicated, according to new research from two scientific teams.

They both used historical records to calculate the likely amplification of warming as higher temperatures induce release of CO2 from ecosystems.

They both conclude that current estimates of warming are too low, by anything up to 75%.

Their conclusion is backed up by a new report from the Australian government.

The Australian Greenhouse Office says current estimates of temperature rise are "being challenged" by new research.

The latest evidence comes in two papers to be published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters.

They challenge the consensus view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global body charged with collating and analysing climate science. ...

The details are in the article. Basically, there were two studies looking at historical data from different time periods. What they found was that past changes in climate were affected by an additional feedback mechanism, carbon sequestered in soils. This idea has been out there for some time, but has not been observed or quantified before. By saying that they "challenge the consensus view" means that these reseachers have data to suggest that the consensus view is too optimistic.

A climate sensitivity of up to 4.5C translates to a maximum likely temperature rise of about 5.8C by the end of this century; whereas in these two studies, the US team calculates up to 7.7C, with the European group's maximum value even higher.

"In view of our findings," observes Marten Scheffer, "estimates of future warming that ignore these [carbon feedback] effects may have to be raised by about 50%."

Scientists are actually rather skeptical and conservative by nature, so the estimates are missing some of the feedbacks that are not well know, such as soil carbon and methane clathrites. It should be interesting to see whether Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvienient Truth makes it to Frederick. It is probably more worth seeing than that Da Vinci movie.

-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.
- Wallace S. Broecker

Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority.
- Charles B. Paul

Elitist windbag since 2004.